> Looking at the agenda, I see:
> ManchesterSyntax
>
> But no:
> Proposal: this document will/will-not be rec-track
>
> Do we actually have a decision on this? (Could I have a pointer if we
> have?) Even if so, can we review our reasoning (personally, I can see
> arguments on both sides)?
>
> I've gotten some questions about it, so it'd be good to have a clear
> story.
I don't think this has been decided. My spelunking finds:
Ian Horrocks: Manchester syntax?
Ian Horrocks: we agreed for it not to be rec. track, but possibly as
a note
-- http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-08-06#line0236
but then later:
RESOLVED: Authors are encouraged are prepare a WD on Manchester
Syntax, which the WG expects to publish. At some point in the future
we will figure out if this is REC-track or not (ISSUE-139).
-- http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-08-27#resolution_4
Nonetheless, it was my understanding (not remembering that resolution)
that it would be a NOTE, so I wrote in the SOTD last week:
The Working Group expects this document, when done, to be a Working
Group Note, not a W3C Recommendation. As expressed in the document
conformance clause, OWL systems are not required to read or write
this syntax.
-- http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-manchester-syntax-20081202/
I apologize if I did so in error. We should talk about this soon and
make a proper decision.
When Alan and Ian and I were planning this agenda, it seemed to us like
the User Facing Documents could be decided at the same time (as you
requested), but there was no need for Manchester to be in that set. The
reasoning about whether it is Rec track or not seems different, since it
has normative content.
Procedurally, I'd rather not try to change the agenda at this point,
especially since both Ian and Alan are (rather suddenly) expecting to be
out this week. I'm planning to chair the meeting, unless one of them
has another last-minute change of plans and can chair after all.
-- Sandro